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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 07/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9 have been amended; claim 5 has been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objections to claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-6 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,150,691 to Imajo have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the examiner agrees that Imajo does not fully teach amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments on pages 6-7 of the remarks with respect to the alternative prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imajo in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0053816 to Czapka et al. have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant asserts that neither Imajo nor Czapka, alone or in combination, discloses the subject matter of the last six lines of amended claim 1, and Applicant further asserts in the final paragraph of page 6 of the remarks that:
PNG
media_image1.png
131
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Imajo appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the air intake system further includes an attachment element arranged on the tubular injection tube [and] having a first connecting portion arranged on the tubular injection tube and a second connecting portion which is in contact with a wall of the intake port, wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via an air guiding portion formed as an air guiding baffle which extends radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis in such a way that a flow in the intake passage is influenced by the air guiding baffle. However, Czapka teaches an air intake system for an internal combustion engine (10) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2), comprising: an intake passage (e.g., 84); an injector connected to the intake passage (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0012); a tubular injection tube (e.g., 56), which extends along a tubular core axis (104) into the intake passage and is fluidly connected to the injector (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2); and an attachment element (e.g., 58 & 66 together) arranged on the tubular injection tube (apparent from at least Fig. 2), the attachment element having a first connecting portion (e.g., 58) arranged on the tubular injection tube (apparent from at least Fig. 2) and a second connecting portion [e.g., an apparent outermost portion (or outer edge) of the support portion 66] which is in contact with a wall of the intake passage (apparent from at least Fig. 2), wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via an air guiding portion (e.g., 66) (apparent from at least Fig. 2) formed as an air guiding baffle (apparent from at least Fig. 2) which extends radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis in such a way that a flow in the intake passage is influenced by the air guiding baffle (apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least ¶ 0017, 0018 & 0020).
The examiner notes that the attachment element of Czapka is formed of myriad definable portions, including an apparent definable first portion (e.g., “first connection portion”) via at least a portion of the inner boss 58 of the attachment element, and including an apparent definable second portion (e.g., “second connection portion”) via a portion of the support portion 66 of the attachment element that is an apparent outermost portion (or outer edge) of the support portion 66, where the at least a portion of the inner boss 58 of the attachment element is clearly shown by at least Fig. 2 of Czapka as being connected to the apparent outermost portion (or outer edge) of the support portion 66 via the support portion 66 (such as via an apparent definable central portion of the support portion 66) of the attachment element.
The examiner further notes that the support portion 66 is clearly shown as a flat plate extending axially along a length of the mixer element 56 (e.g., “tubular injection tube”), and at least ¶ 0039 of Applicant’s specification indicates that a flat plate is no different from a baffle in the context of Applicant’s disclosure. Also, each of the air guiding baffles 24, 25, and 26 in Figs. 2-3 of Applicant’s drawings is indistinguishable from the support portion 66 shown by at least Fig. 2 of Czapka. Respectfully, it is unclear why Applicant believes that the support portion 66 shown by at least Fig. 2 of Czapka is neither an “air guiding portion” nor an “air guiding baffle” in view of Applicant’s disclosure clearly demonstrating that the support portion 66 is structurally no different from each of the air guiding baffles 24, 25, and 26 in Figs. 2-3 of Applicant’s drawings.
The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cylinder head of Imajo with the teachings of Czapka, if even necessary, to further include an attachment element arranged on the tubular injection tube [and] having a first connecting portion arranged on the tubular injection tube and a second connecting portion which is in contact with a wall of the intake port, wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via an air guiding portion formed as an air guiding baffle which extends radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis in such a way that a flow in the intake passage is influenced by the air guiding baffle because Czapka further teaches that further arrangement of an attachment element on the tubular injection tube beneficially provides rigidly supporting (and positioning) of the tubular injection tube within an associated air intake passage of an internal combustion engine under all operating and assembly conditions (as discussed by at least ¶ 0020 of Czapka), and nothing about the attachment element of Czapka, when arranged on the tubular injection tube of Imajo within the intake port of the cylinder head arrangement of the cylinder head of Imajo, would be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to function differently, to cause the cylinder head (or an element thereof) of Imajo to function differently, or to produce unpredictable results, as the attachment element of Czapka is already taught by Czapka as being arranged on a tubular injection tube within an air intake passage for an internal combustion engine, and the intake port of Imajo is an air intake passage for an internal combustion engine. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,150,691 to Imajo (hereinafter: “Imajo”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0053816 to Czapka et al. (hereinafter: “Czapka”).
With respect to claim 1, Imajo teaches a cylinder head (28) for an internal combustion engine (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 48-63) comprising: a cylinder head arrangement (e.g., 28) including an intake port (e.g., 22a or 22b or 22a & 22b together; note that the embodiment of Fig. 6 of Applicant’s drawings shows an intake port 7’ which branches into a first intake port section having a first combustion chamber inlet aperture 9 corresponding to a first inlet valve 12 and a second intake port section having a second combustion chamber inlet aperture 9’ corresponding to a second inlet valve 12’, such that the two intake ports 22a, 22b of Imajo are together definable as an “intake port” under a broadest reasonable interpretation in view of Applicant’s disclosure); an injector (23) connected to the cylinder head arrangement (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4); and a tubular injection tube (e.g., 24, or one or both of ends 24b), which extends along a tubular core axis into the intake port and is fluidly connected to the injector (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4).
Imajo appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the air intake system further includes an attachment element arranged on the tubular injection tube [and] having a first connecting portion arranged on the tubular injection tube and a second connecting portion which is in contact with a wall of the intake port, wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via an air guiding portion formed as an air guiding baffle which extends radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis in such a way that a flow in the intake port is influenced by the air guiding baffle.
Czapka teaches an air intake system for an internal combustion engine (10) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2), comprising: an intake passage (e.g., 84); an injector connected to the intake passage (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0012); a tubular injection tube (e.g., 56), which extends along a tubular core axis (104) into the intake passage and is fluidly connected to the injector (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2); and an attachment element (e.g., 66, or 58 & 66 together) arranged on the tubular injection tube (apparent from at least Fig. 2), the attachment element having a first connecting portion (e.g., 58) arranged on the tubular injection tube (apparent from at least Fig. 2) and a second connecting portion [e.g., an apparent outermost portion (or outer edge) of the support portion 66] which is in contact with a wall of the intake port (apparent from at least Fig. 2), wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via an air guiding portion (e.g., 66) (apparent from at least Fig. 2) formed as an air guiding baffle (apparent from at least Fig. 2) which extends radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis in such a way that a flow in the intake passage is influenced by the air guiding baffle (apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least ¶ 0017, 0018 & 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cylinder head of Imajo with the teachings of Czapka, if even necessary, to further include an attachment element arranged on the tubular injection tube [and] having a first connecting portion arranged on the tubular injection tube and a second connecting portion which is in contact with a wall of the intake port, wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via an air guiding portion formed as an air guiding baffle which extends radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis in such a way that a flow in the intake port is influenced by the air guiding baffle because Czapka further teaches that further arrangement of an attachment element on the tubular injection tube beneficially provides rigidly supporting (and positioning) of the tubular injection tube within an associated air intake passage of an internal combustion engine under all operating and assembly conditions (as discussed by at least ¶ 0020 of Czapka), and nothing about the attachment element of Czapka, when arranged on the tubular injection tube of Imajo within the intake port of the cylinder head arrangement of the cylinder head of Imajo, would be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to function differently, to cause the cylinder head (or an element thereof) of Imajo to function differently, or to produce unpredictable results, as the attachment element of Czapka is already taught by Czapka as being arranged on a tubular injection tube within an air intake passage for an internal combustion engine, and the intake port of Imajo is an air intake passage for an internal combustion engine. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to a simple combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A).
With respect to claim 2, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein a radial length of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial length of the air guiding portion [for example, it is apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka that a length of the support portion 66 (e.g., “radial length”) in a radial direction with respect to the central axis 104 is greater than a length of a thickness of the central boss 58 (e.g., “axial length”)].
With respect to claim 3, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein the air guiding portion extends from the first connecting portion radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis (apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka in view of at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4 of Imajo).
With respect to claim 4, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 3, wherein a smallest cylindrical envelope of the first connecting portion, whose cylindrical axis is arranged coaxially to the tubular core axis, has a smaller radius than a largest radial extension of the air guiding portion from the tubular core axis [apparent from at least Fig. 2 (and at least ¶ 0020) of Czapka in view of at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4 of Imajo].
With respect to claim 6, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein the tubular injection tube has an injection aperture which opens into the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4 of Imajo), wherein the attachment element is arranged between the injector and the injection aperture (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4 of Imajo in view of at least Fig. 2 of Czapka).
With respect to claim 7, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 6, wherein the cylinder head comprises a first valve (e.g., a first one of intake valves 26 of Imajo) which can reversibly open and close a first combustion chamber opening (e.g., 22b of Imajo) of the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 51-57 of Imajo), wherein the first valve has a valve disc and a valve shaft which extends along a first valve axis [it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 of Imajo that the first one of the intake valves 26 includes a stem 25 (e.g., “valve shaft”) and an apparent definable valve disc at an end of the stem 25, where the stem 25 extends along an apparent definable central longitudinal axis (e.g., “first valve axis”) of the first one of the intake valves 26], wherein the injection aperture is arranged at least in portions within a smallest cylindrical envelope of the valve disc of the first valve which is coaxial with the first valve axis (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 of Imajo).
With respect to claim 8, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 6, comprising: a first valve (e.g., a first one of intake valves 26 of Imajo) which can reversibly open and close a first combustion chamber inlet aperture (e.g., 22b of Imajo) of the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 51-57 of Imajo), wherein the first valve has a valve disc and a valve shaft which extends along a first valve axis [it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 of Imajo that the first one of the intake valves 26 includes a stem 25 (e.g., “valve shaft”) and an apparent definable valve disc at an end of the stem 25, where the stem 25 extends along an apparent definable central longitudinal axis (e.g., “first valve axis”) of the first one of the intake valves 26] and in that the cylinder head comprises a second valve (e.g., a second one of the intake valves 26 of Imajo) which can reversibly open and close a second combustion chamber inlet aperture (e.g., 22a of Imajo) of the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 51-57 of Imajo), wherein the second valve has a valve disc and a valve shaft which extends along a second valve axis [it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 of Imajo that the first one of the intake valves 26 includes a stem 25 (e.g., “valve shaft”) and an apparent definable valve disc at an end of the stem 25, where the stem 25 extends along an apparent definable central longitudinal axis (e.g., “first valve axis”) of the first one of the intake valves 26], wherein the injection aperture is arranged between a first imaginary plane, which is described by the first valve axis and a perpendicular to the tubular core axis; and a second imaginary plane, in which the second valve axis is arranged and which extends parallel to the first imaginary plane (for example, as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Imajo provided directly below in view of at least Figs. 2 & 4 of Imajo).
PNG
media_image2.png
429
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein an extent of the air guiding baffle along a circumference around the tubular core axis is smaller than a radial extent of the air guiding baffle with respect to the tubular core axis (apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka).
With respect to claim 10, Imajo modified supra teaches an internal combustion engine (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 48-63 of Imajo) comprising: the cylinder head according to claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights