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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “valve actuation motion source” in claim 1; “auxiliary valve actuation motion source” and “main valve actuation motion source” in claim 5, and “checking element” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANDERPOEL (U.S. Patent 6,422,186 B2) in view of YANG ‘483 (U.S. Patent 7,484,483 B2). Please refer to the Examiner annotated figures below in addition to the rejection for clarity of the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, VANDERPOEL discloses: a rocker arm (30) (see Figures 2 and 3) for conveying valve actuation motions, the rocker arm comprising a motion receiving portion (111) configured to receive the valve actuation motions from a valve actuation motion source (2) and a motion imparting portion (MIP) (see Marked up Figures by Examiner) configured to convey the valve actuation motions to a valve train component or at least one engine valve (1), the rocker arm further comprising:
a hydraulic actuator piston (213) slidably disposed in an actuator bore (2131, 1131);
a control valve (215) (see Figures 2 and 3) configured to selectively provide hydraulic fluid to the actuator bore (see Figures 2 and 3, where the control valve provides hydraulic fluid to the actuator bore by opening and closing the passage from (216) to (212) (see Column 8, lines 46-67, Column 9, lines 7-16)) ; 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 (see Figures 2 and 3, Column 8, lines 6-9), wherein reaction of the hydraulic actuator piston against the valve train component or the at least one engine valve biases the motion receiving portion of the rocker arm into contact with the valve actuation motion source (as seen in Figure 3),
wherein, in an unactuated state of the hydraulic actuator piston, hydraulic fluid is permitted to flow out of the actuator bore (Column 8, lines 46-67) and, in an actuated state of the hydraulic actuator piston, the control valve establish a volume of hydraulic fluid locked in the actuator bore (Column 9, lines 7-16).
The Examiner would like to note that the checking valve portion (CE) of the control valve 215 and the check valve 2134 (which effectuates the auto lash function of the lost motion piston assembly (213) are each hydraulically actuated when the system is switched to the braking mode (aka the actuated state) (see Column 8, lines 36-45).
VANDERPOEL fails to disclose that the control valve is hydraulically controlled since it uses a shaft rotation (24) or shaft reciprocation (31) that reciprocates a shaft (23, 32) inside the control valve (215) (see Figure 2, where the cam controls the movement of the shaft (23), and Figure 3 that shows shaft (31) controls the movement of shaft (32) (Column 9, lines 30-44)).
Regarding claim 1, YANG ‘483 teaches: actuation of a control valve that utilizes a shaft (716) that interfaces with a stop (734), where the stop (734) is moved by hydraulic fluid via valve (736) (see Figure 14, Column 12, line 54 – Column 13, line 54) to move shaft (716) to reciprocate to the desired location, and therefore, the control valve is hydraulically controlled.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the control valve being hydraulically controlled in the rocker arm of VANDERPOEL, since applying a known technique (i.e. utilizing a hydraulic system to move a shaft in a control valve), as taught by YANG ‘483 to a known device (i.e. the rocker arm of VANDERPOEL that uses a rotating shaft (24) for the reciprocating motion of the shaft (23)) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of being able to quickly change the movement of the reciprocating shaft (23) in VANDERPOEL by changing the opening or closing of the valve (736) that hydraulically controls movement of the reciprocating shaft in the control valve. Changing from a mechanical interface (i.e. a control valve with a mechanical cam) for a hydraulic interface such as taught by YANG ‘483 requires only routine skill in the art. YANG ‘483 is utilized in the rejection to show that movement of a reciprocating shaft inside a control valve by hydraulic fluid is well-known in the art. Switching from a mechanical cam (24) to a hydraulically actuated interface as taught by YANG ‘483 requires only routine skill in the art, as well as, produces predictable results (i.e. the ability to change the opening or closing of the valve (736) to effect the operation of the control valve (215), versus having to change the cam on shaft (24) in VANDERPOEL.
Regarding claim 2, VANDERPOEL discloses: the actuator spring is further configured to absorb the valve actuation motions received from the valve actuation motions source during the unactuated state (Column 8, lines 36-67).
Regarding claim 3, VANDERPOEL discloses: the rocker arm is a center pivot rocker arm (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, VANDERPOEL discloses: the actuator bore is formed in the motion imparting portion of the rocker arm (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, VANDERPOEL discloses: when the motion imparting portion is configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the at least one engine valve (see Figures 2 and 3, Column 5, lines 61-62), wherein the at least one engine valve comprises at least one exhaust valve (Column 5, lines 61-62) and the valve actuation motion source is an auxiliary valve actuation motion source separate from a main valve actuation motion source (Column 9, lines 7-29).
Regarding claim 6, VANDERPOEL discloses: the control valve (215) comprising a control valve piston (23) slidably disposed in a control valve bore (see Figures 2 and 3);
a first hydraulic fluid passage (212) in fluid communication with the control valve bore and the actuator bore (see Figures 2 and 3);
a second hydraulic passage (216) in fluid communication with the control valve bore (see Figures 2 and 3) and configured to receive hydraulic fluid from a constant hydraulic fluid supply (see Figures 2 and 3 and Column 8, lines 6-35); and
a vent port (VP) (see Marked up Figure 3 by Examiner) in fluid communication with the first hydraulic passage and the control valve bore (see Figures 2 and 3),
wherein, in the unactuated state, the control valve piston is positioned within the control valve bore to permit flow of hydraulic fluid from the second hydraulic passage to the first hydraulic passage and the actuator bore and to permit flow of hydraulic fluid from the first hydraulic passage to the control valve bore through the vent port (see Figures 2 and 3, Column 8, lines 46-67),
and wherein, in the actuated state, the control valve piston is positioned within the control valve bore to occlude the first hydraulic passage and the vent port thereby locking hydraulic fluid in the first hydraulic passage and the actuator bore (see Figures 2 and 3, Column 9, lines 7-16).
Regarding claim 7, VANDERPOEL discloses: the control valve bore is formed in the motion imparting portion of the rocker arm (see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 8, VANDERPOEL discloses: a selectable hydraulic fluid passage (2212) (see Figure 3) in fluid communication with the control valve bore (see Figure 3) and configured to receive hydraulic fluid from a selectable hydraulic fluid supply (see Figure 3 and Column 8, lines 6-35).
Regarding claim 9, VANDERPOEL discloses: the control valve piston has a piston bore (PB in Marked up Figure 3 by Examiner) formed therein, an annular channel (AC) (see Marked up Figure 3 by Examiner) formed on an outer diameter of the control valve piston and a radial opening (RO) (see Marked up Figure 3 by Examiner) in fluid communication with the piston bore and the annular channel (see Figure 3), and wherein the piston bore is configured to receive hydraulic fluid from the selectable hydraulic fluid passage via the control valve bore (see Figures 2 and 3 that shows the piston bore receiving hydraulic fluid from (2212) the selectable hydraulic fluid passage).
Regarding claim 10, VANDERPOEL discloses: the annular channel is configured to provide fluid communication between the first and second hydraulic passages during the unactuated state (Column 8, lines 46-67).
Regarding claim 11, VANDERPOEL discloses: a checking element (CE in Marked up Figures by Examiner, 2134) disposed in the control valve piston between the piston bore and the radial opening and configured to permit flow of hydraulic fluid from the piston bore to the annular channel via the radial opening, but not vice versa (see Column 8, lines 36-45 and Column 9, lines 7-16. It is noted that the checking valve portion CE of the control valve 215 and the check valve 2134 (which effectuates the auto lash function of the lost motion piston assembly (213) are each hydraulically actuated when the system is switched to the actuated state (aka braking mode)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified rocker arm of VANDERPOEL / YANG ‘483 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YANG ‘536 (U.S. Patent Publication US 2014/0182536). Please refer to the Examiner annotated figures below in addition to the rejection for clarity of the rejection.
Regarding claim 12, VANDERPOEL discloses: the claimed invention including the at least one engine valve (1) comprises at least one exhaust valve (1) and the valve actuation motion source is an auxiliary valve actuation motion source separate from a main valve actuation motion source (see Column 9, lines 7-29).
The modified rocker arm of VANDERPOEL/YANG ‘483 fails to disclose the motion imparting portion is configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the valve train component. The modified rocker arm of VANDERPOEL/YANG ‘483 discloses that the motion imparting portion conveys to the at least one exhaust valve (see Figure 3 of VANDERPOEL).
Regarding claim 12, YANG ‘536 teaches: the motion imparting portion (MIP) (see Examiner Marked up Figure 9) is configured to convey the valve actuation motions to the at least one engine valve (301) via the valve train component (400).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have applied the teaching of YANG ‘536 to convey the valve actuation motion from the motion imparting potion to the at least one engine valve via the valve train component with in the valve train assembly of VANDERPOEL / YANG ‘483 since it would enable the rocker arm to open two exhaust valves simultaneously as taught by YANG ‘536 (see ¶0088 of YANG ‘536).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The Examiner maintains the 112(f) claim interpretation, except for the “valve train component” which has been removed from the 112(f) claim interpretation. The Examiner agrees with Examiner Leon and has kept the other 112(f) claim interpretations.
The amendments to claims 5 and 12 have resolved the 112(b) rejections, which are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection utilizing a secondary reference of YANG ‘483.
The Examiner still utilized VANERPOEL as the primary reference, however, has introduced a secondary reference that discloses utilizing a “hydraulically controlled valve” (see rejection above). The arguments with regards to VANERPOEL is that a shaft (24) is used to control valve (215). This control engages and disengages allowing for a shaft (23) to move the valve (215) up and down. YANG ‘483 teaches an engagement and disengagement with a shaft (716) that is actuated by hydraulic fluid (see Figure 14).
The Examiner would like to note that the limitation directed to “a control valve configured to selectively provide hydraulic fluid to the actuator bore, is still met by VANDERPOEL. This limitation is directed to the operation of the control valve providing hydraulic fluid, which VANDERPOEL meets. The additional limitation added at the end of claim 1 directed to the control valve is hydraulically controlled, is considered to not be met by VANDERPOEL. The Examiner would like to note that the claim limitations are interpreted broadly. Applicant has used broad terms such as “configured to selectively provide” hydraulic fluid to the actuator bore. The fluid flowing through the valve is hydraulic fluid (Column 8, lines 25-35). The control valve is “configured to selectively provide hydraulic fluid to the actuator bore”, since the valve allows and blocks hydraulic fluid, thereby selectively providing hydraulic fluid to the actuator bore (Column 8, lines 25-35 and 46-67, Column 9, lines 7-16), as well as, YANG ‘483 discloses actuation of a reciprocating shaft to control a control valve utilizing hydraulic fluid (see Figure 14 of YANG ‘483).
The claims never recite specifically that the control valve receives hydraulic fluid via a hydraulic fluid supply passage (322) that moves the control valve piston downward thereby locking in a hydraulic volume of hydraulic fluid in the actuator bore. The claims are broadly written, such that VANDERPOEL in view of YANG ‘483 reads on the claim limitations. Even claim 8 that recites the “selectable hydraulic fluid passage”, this limitation is also broadly interpreted to be met by VANDERPOEL since it lacks interconnectivity to the control valve.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights