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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited functions and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “valve actuation motion source”, “valve train component”, and “checking element” in claim 1; “auxiliary valve actuation motion source” and “main valve actuation motion source” in claim 5; and “checking element” in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 5 and 12 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.
In Reference to Claim 5
This claim is intended to further limit the “at least one engine valve” of base claim 1 which is originally recited as an optional component. Thus, it is unclear if the limitations of claim 5 would even apply to the alternative case in which the motion imparting portion is not configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the at least one engine valve (i.e., when the motion imparting portion is configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the valve train component).
In Reference to Claim 12
This claim is intended to further limit the “at least one engine valve” of base claim 1 which is originally recited as an optional component. Moreover, this claim recites a scenario in which the valve actuation motions are conveyed to the valve train component. Thus, it is unclear if the limitations of claim 12 would even apply to the alternative case in which the motion imparting portion is not configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the valve train component (i.e., when the motion imparting portion is configured to convey the valve actuation motions directly to the at least one engine valve).
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.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,422,186 to Vanderpoel (Vanderpoel).
Vanderpoel teaches (see Vanderpoel and Fig. 3 as annotated by the Examiner below):
In Reference to Claim 1
A rocker arm (Fig. 3 – reference character 30) comprising:
A motion receiving portion (111) configured to receive valve actuation motions from a valve actuation motion source (2);
A motion imparting portion (MIP) configured to:
convey the valve actuation motions to at least one engine valve via a valve train component, or
convey the valve actuation motions directly to the at least one engine valve (1);
An actuator bore (2131);
A hydraulic actuator piston (213) slidably disposed in the actuator bore; and
An actuator spring (2132) configured to bias the hydraulic actuator piston out of the actuator bore and into contact with the valve train component or the at least one engine valve,
Wherein a pressing of the hydraulic actuator piston against the valve train component or the at least one engine valve biases the motion receiving portion into contact with the valve actuation motion source (as seen from Fig. 3), and
Wherein the hydraulic actuator piston is configured to be switched between (i) a motion absorbing state in which hydraulic fluid is enabled to flow out of the actuator bore (Vanderpoel col. 8; lines 46 – 67), and (ii) a motion conveying state in which the hydraulic fluid is locked in the actuator bore (col. 9; lines 7 – 16), and
Wherein a checking element (CE, 2134) is hydraulically indexed to switch the hydraulic from the unactuated state to the actuated state (col. 9; lines 7 – 16*).
* – It is to be noted that checking valve portion CE of the control valve 215 and check valve 2134 (which effectuates the autolash function of the lost motion piston assembly 213) of Vanderpoel are each hydraulically actuated when the system is switched to the braking mode (i.e., the actuated state). See also Vanderpoel col. 8; lines 36 – 45.
In Reference to Claim 2
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the actuator spring is further configured to absorb the valve actuation motions received from the valve actuation motion source during the motion absorbing state (Vanderpoel col. 8; lines 36 – 67).
In Reference to Claim 3
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the rocker arm is a center-pivot rocker arm (as seen from Fig. 3).
In Reference to Claim 4
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the actuator bore is formed in the motion imparting portion (as seen from Fig. 3).
In Reference to Claim 5
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the motion imparting portion is configured to convey the valve actuation motions directly to the at least one engine valve,
Wherein the at least one engine valve includes at least one exhaust valve, and
Wherein the valve actuation motion source is an auxiliary valve actuation motion source separate from a main valve actuation motion source (Vanderpoel col. 9; lines 7 – 29).
In Reference to Claim 6
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, further comprising:
A control valve bore;
A control valve (Fig. 3 – reference character 215) including a control valve piston (23) slidably disposed in the control valve bore;
A first hydraulic fluid passage (212) in fluid communication with the control valve bore and the actuator bore;
A second hydraulic passage (216) in fluid communication with the control valve bore, the second hydraulic passage configured to receive the hydraulic fluid from a constant hydraulic fluid supply (Vanderpoel col. 8; lines 6 – 35); and
A vent port (VP) in fluid communication with the first hydraulic passage and the control valve bore,
Wherein, in the motion absorbing state, the control valve piston is positioned within the control valve bore so as to (i) enable flow of the hydraulic fluid from the second hydraulic passage to the actuator bore via the first hydraulic passage, and (ii) enable flow of the hydraulic fluid from the first hydraulic passage to the control valve bore via the vent port (col. 8; lines 46 – 67), and
Wherein, in the motion conveying state, the control valve piston is positioned within the control valve bore so as to block the first hydraulic passage and the vent port thereby locking the hydraulic fluid in the first hydraulic passage and the actuator bore (col. 9; lines 7 – 16).
In Reference to Claim 7
In addition to all the limitations of claim 6 discussed above, wherein the control valve bore is formed in the motion imparting portion (as seen from Fig. 3).
In Reference to Claim 8
In addition to all the limitations of claim 6 discussed above, further comprising:
A selectable hydraulic fluid passage (Fig. 3 – reference character 2212) in fluid communication with the control valve bore, the selectable hydraulic fluid passage configured to receive the hydraulic fluid from a selectable hydraulic fluid supply (Vanderpoel col. 8; lines 6 – 35).
In Reference to Claim 9
In addition to all the limitations of claim 8 discussed above, wherein the control valve piston includes:
A piston bore (Fig. 3 – reference character PB) configured to receive the hydraulic fluid from the selectable hydraulic fluid passage via the control valve bore;
An annular channel (AC) formed on an outer surface of the control valve piston, and
A radial opening (RO) in fluid communication with the piston bore and the annular channel.
In Reference to Claim 10
In addition to all the limitations of claim 9 discussed above, wherein the annular channel is configured to provide fluid communication between the first and second hydraulic passages during the motion absorbing state (Vanderpoel col. 8; lines 46 – 67).
In Reference to Claim 11
In addition to all the limitations of claim 9 discussed above, further comprising:
A second checking element (Fig. 3 – reference character CE) disposed in the control valve piston between the piston bore and the radial opening, the checking element configured to enable one-way flow of the hydraulic fluid from the piston bore to the annular channel via the radial opening (Vanderpoel col. 9; lines 7 – 29).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderpoel in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0182536 to Yang (Yang).
In Reference to Claim 12
Vanderpoel teaches:
In addition to all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above, wherein the at least one engine valve includes at least one exhaust valve, and
Wherein the valve actuation motion source is an auxiliary valve actuation motion source separate from a main valve actuation motion source (Vanderpoel col. 9; lines 7 – 29).
Vanderpoel does not teach the following which is taught by Yang (see Yang and Fig. 9 as annotated by the Examiner below):
Wherein the motion imparting portion (Fig. 9 – reference character MIP) is configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the at least one engine valve (301) via the valve train component (400).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teaching of Yang to convey the valve actuation motion from the motion imparting portion to the at least one engine valve via the valve train component within the valve train assembly of Vanderpoel since it would enable the rocker arm to open two exhaust valves simultaneously as taught by Yang (paragraph [0088]).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED BY EXAMINER
PNG
media_image2.png
446
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED BY EXAMINER
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 May 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s correction to the typographical error found during initial examination. The objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, however, fails to clarify the indefiniteness that served as grounds for the rejection of claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as detailed above.
Further, applicant’s arguments and amendment fail to overcome the art-based rejections of the claims as they are fully articulated in the body of this office action. A response to applicant’s arguments has been addressed only where specific arguments have been presented.
Applicant argues with respect to amended independent claim 1 that the Vanderpoel reference does not teach “wherein a checking element is hydraulically indexed to switch the hydraulic actuator piston from the unactuated state to the actuated state” since Vanderpoel allegedly uses the rotational motion shaft 24 to move the piston from the locked/unlocked state. It is the Office’s position, however, that the rotational motion shaft 24 of Vanderpoel merely actuates the control valve 215, not the lost motion piston assembly (i.e., the hydraulic actuator piston) 213. Moreover, Vanderpoel teaches (at col. 9; lines 7 – 16) that the check valve portion CE of the control valve 215 and the check valve 2134 of the lost motion piston assembly 213 are each actuated hydraulically when the system is switched to the braking mode (i.e., the actuated state). Hence, the prior art of Vanderpoel anticipates the limitations of the amended claim.
Thus, the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103, stand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE LEON JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9am - 7pm ET).
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JORGE L LEON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights