DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to applicant's amendment received on 3/18/2026. Amended claims 1 and 3-20 are acknowledged and the following grounds of rejection below are maintained. Claims 21-24 are now cancelled.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein a third plane substantially bisects the angle α, the third plane comprising each of the axis of rotation of the balancer shaft and the longitudinal crankshaft axis, the axis of rotation of the balancer shaft being spaced apart from the longitudinal crankshaft axis”. The limitation is unclear as it makes it seem that balancer shaft axis (7a) of the present invention shown in figure 4 must intersect the crankshaft axis (5a) and bisect the angle α when the angle α is not a physical structural component to use as a reference since it just an angle between two cylinder banks. Examiner reads claim on broadest reasonable interpretation and so the rejection is maintained due to unclarity.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement since the engine cannot be both an inline configuration engine and a V-type configuration.
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 7-14 and 19 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first path" and “the second path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These limitations were changed to “plane” in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 depends on cancelled claim 2. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-11, 14-17, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano (JP 2017057218), hereinafter “Sano”.
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses a vehicular V-type engine, comprising: a crankshaft (33) operably mounted in a crankcase (inherent), the crankshaft being configured to rotate about a longitudinal crankshaft axis; a balancer shaft (46) operably coupled to the crankshaft and disposed below the crankshaft (shown in figure 2 that the balancer shaft is below the crankshaft in a vertical direction, paragraph 33), the balancer shaft having an axis of rotation; and a plurality of pistons (26 and 28) coupled to the crankshaft, wherein each piston is coupled to the crankshaft via a con rod (30 and 32) and each piston is configured to translate along a radial axis extending perpendicularly from the longitudinal crankshaft axis to enable the vehicular engine to generate power (paragraphs 26-28), wherein the radial axis for a first piston of the plurality of pistons defines a first plane (3) and the radial axis for a second piston of the plurality of pistons defines a second plane (36L), wherein the first plane and the second plane are disposed at positions spaced from one another along the longitudinal crankshaft axis (shown in figure 2), wherein an angle α formed between the first plane and the second plane is less than 90° (shown in figure 2 the angle of β), wherein a third plane substantially bisects the angle α, the third plane comprising each of the axis of rotation of the balancer shaft (46) and the longitudinal crankshaft axis (33C), the axis of rotation of the balancer shaft being spaced apart from the longitudinal crankshaft axis (shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 1, wherein the angle α is less than 75° (clearly shown in figure 2 that the angle is less than 75 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 1, further comprising at least one cylinder block (inherent) for translation of at least one of the plurality of pistons along the first plane and at least one cylinder block (inherent) for translation of at least one of the plurality of pistons along the second plane, wherein each at least one cylinder block is coupled to an upper portion of the crankcase above the longitudinal crankshaft axis (inherent).
Regarding claim 8, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 7, further comprising an exhaust manifold (inherent that the V-type engine has an exhaust manifold).
Regarding claim 9, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 8, wherein the exhaust manifold (inherent) is disposed at an angle (same angle as disposed for the cylinders in a V-type engine) substantially equal to the angle α (shown in figure 2 as β). Furthermore, “substantially” is not defined within the specification.
Regarding claim 10 and 14, Sano discloses V-type the vehicular engine of claim 9, further comprising an air plenum (intake system 145C) coupled to the crankcase. Examiner notes that when the engine is fully assembled, every component is coupled to each other. The claim does not state that the air plenum has to be directly coupled to the crankcase.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 10, wherein each of the air plenum (inherent intake portion) and the exhaust manifold (inherent in a V-type engine) extends outwardly from the longitudinal crankshaft axis to a substantially equal distance (shown in figure 1). Furthermore, “substantially” is not defined within the specification.
Regarding claim 16, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 2, further comprising a balancer cover (inherent crankcase cover that covers the gears proximal to the crankshaft) disposed below a lower portion of the crankcase and operably coupled thereto.
Regarding claim 17, Sano discloses the vehicular V-type engine of claim 16, further comprising a balancer gear (46B) separable from and operably coupled to the crankshaft (33) and a front gear (33B) coupled to the balancer shaft (46), wherein the balancer gear (46B) and the front gear (33B) engage one another (shown in figure 2, paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 19, Sano discloses the vehicular engine of claim 8, wherein each cylinder block (inherent) and corresponding cylinder head (inherent) is identical in construction (shown in figures 1-2).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano.
Regarding claims 4-6, Sano discloses the claimed invention except for the angle α being about 67°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the angle α being about 67°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Bosch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Examiner also notes that no definition is given to “about” within the specification and therefore Sano still reads on these claims.
Regarding claim 12, Sano discloses the claimed invention except for the exhaust manifold being in the area of where the angle α is formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of when the invention was made to have the exhaust ports come out towards the valley between the two cylinders and the intake ports be on the outside (since many V-type engines have this configuration), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Janise, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 13, Sano discloses the vehicular engine of claim 12, wherein a center of gravity for the vehicular engine is proximal to a plane that intersects the longitudinal crankshaft axis (105) and substantially bisects the angle α. Examiner notes that the center of gravity of a V-type engine is disposed normally in the middle and lower close to the crankshaft. Furthermore, “proximal” is not defined within the specification to ascertain a value of how proximal the center of gravity must be to the plane.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano in view of Kamaya et al. (U.S. Patent Number 5,305,656), hereinafter “Kamiya”.
Regarding claim 18, Sano discloses the same invention substantially as claimed but is silent to disclose an oil groove disposed in the balancer gear. However, Kamiya teaches the use of an oil groove and oil passage (34) within the balancer gear (18) for the purpose of lubricating engine components more effectively and reduce noise from the gears (shown figure 14m column 9, lines 50-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sano by incorporating a lubricating oil groove or plane within the balancer gear as taught by Kamiya for the purpose of lubricating engine components more effectively and reduce noise from the gears.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the new Sano reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art teaches all the limitations of claim 20 (if claim 20 depends on claim 17), but more specifically, an oil groove that goes through the thickness of the balancer gear to help lubricate the crankshaft web.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892.
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 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 SYED O HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 11AM-7PM.
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 at (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.
/SYED O HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights