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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A cylinder head for an internal combustion engine comprising:” in line 1, which appears to be a misstating of --A cylinder head for an internal combustion engine, comprising:--.
Claim 1 recites “the injection tube” in line 6, which should be amended to instead recite --the tubular injection tube-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a tubular injection tube” in line 4 of the claim.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the attachment element is arranged on the injection tube,” in line 3, which is fully redundant with “an attachment element arranged on the injection tube” in line 6 of claim 1 and should be removed from the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the injection tube” in line 3, which should be amended to instead recite --the tubular injection tube-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a tubular injection tube” in line 4 of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “the injection tube” in line 1, which should be amended to instead recite --the tubular injection tube-- for consistency and proper antecedent basis with “a tubular injection tube” in line 4 of claim 1.
Claim 7 should be amended to remove the space before the period at the end of line 7 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 2 and 9 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 2 recites “wherein a radial extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension” in lines 1-2. Firstly, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “an axial extension” in the context of the claimed “cylinder head,” as claim 2 does not clearly specify a relationship between the “axial extension” and any element(s) of the claimed “cylinder head.” Also, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “is greater than” in the context of “wherein a radial extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension” given that neither the “radial extension” nor the “axial extension” is a number or quantity in the context of the claim. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “wherein a radial extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension” in claim 2. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend lines 1-2 of claim 2 to instead recite something like: --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--.
Claim 9 recites “wherein an extent of the air guiding baffle along a circumference around the tubular core axis is smaller than a radial extent with respect to the tubular core axis” in lines 3-4; however, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “a radial extent” in the context of the claimed “cylinder head,” as claim 9 does not clearly specify a relationship between the “radial extent” and any element(s) of the claimed “cylinder head.” Therefore, it is unclear what exactly is meant by “wherein an extent of the air guiding baffle along a circumference around the tubular core axis is smaller than a radial extent with respect to the tubular core axis” in claim 9. To overcome the rejection, one suggestion is to amend lines 3-4 of claim 9 to instead recite something like: -- 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--.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,150,691 to Imajo (hereinafter: “Imajo”).
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); 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); and an attachment element (e.g., 24a) arranged on the injection tube (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4), the attachment element having an air guiding portion 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 portion {for example, it is apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 that an apparent definable first portion of the connector 24a extends radially outwards with respect to an apparent definable central longitudinal axis (e.g., “tubular core axis”) of the one of the ends 24 [or from a central longitudinal axis (e.g., “tubular core axis”) of a first one of the two ends 24] into an interior of the two intake ports 22a, 22b at a location upstream of a branch 22c so as to necessarily influence, and guide, a flow of air within the interior of the two intake ports 22a, 22b at the location upstream of the branch 22c}.
With respect to claim 2, Imajo teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein a radial extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension [for example, as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 4 provided directly below; note that “axial extension” in claim 2 does not refer to any particular element(s) of the claimed “cylinder head,” and neither “radial extension” nor “axial extension” is a number or quantity in the context of claim 2, such that “is greater than” in the context of “wherein a radial extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension” has no clear meaning].
PNG
media_image1.png
389
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Imajo teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein the attachment element has a first connecting portion, wherein the attachment element is arranged on the injection tube, wherein the air guiding portion extends from the first connecting portion radially outwards with respect to the tubular core axis (for example, as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 4 provided directly below in view of at least Figs. 1 & 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
361
844
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Imajo 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 (for example, apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 4 provided above with respect to claim 3 in view of at least Figs. 1 & 2).
With respect to claim 5, Imajo teaches the cylinder head according to claim 3, wherein the attachment element has a second connecting portion which is in contact with a wall of the intake port (for example, as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 2 provided directly below in view of at least Figs. 1 & 4), wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via the air guiding portion (for example, apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 4 provided above with respect to claim 3 and the marked-up copy of Fig. 2 provided directly below in view of at least Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
748
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6, Imajo teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein the injection tube has an injection aperture which opens into the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4), wherein the attachment element is arranged between the injector and the injection aperture (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4).
With respect to claim 7, Imajo 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) which can reversibly open and close a first combustion chamber opening (e.g., 22b) of the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 51-57), 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 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).
With respect to claim 8, Imajo teaches the cylinder head according to claim 6, comprising: a first valve (e.g., a first one of intake valves 26) which can reversibly open and close a first combustion chamber inlet aperture (e.g., 22b) of the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 51-57), 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 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) which can reversibly open and close a second combustion chamber inlet aperture (e.g., 22a) of the intake port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 51-57), 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 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 provided directly below in view of at least Figs. 2 & 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, Imajo teaches an internal combustion engine (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least Col. 2, lines 48-63) comprising: the cylinder head according to claim 1 (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
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.
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 1-10 are rejected 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. (hereinafter: “Czapka”), in the alternative to the aforementioned rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imajo.
With respect to claim 1, Imajo teaches a cylinder head for an internal combustion engine comprising: a cylinder head arrangement including an intake port; an injector connected to the cylinder head arrangement; and a tubular injection tube, which extends along a tubular core axis into the intake port and is fluidly connected to the injector [as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)].
As discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Imajo teaches each and every limitation of the claimed cylinder head so as to anticipate claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation. However, in such a case where the connector 24a of Imajo is not interpreted as the claimed “attachment element,” Imajo does not otherwise teach “an attachment element arranged on the injection tube, the attachment element having an air guiding portion 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 portion.” Even so, it is noted that 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 injection tube (apparent from at least Fig. 2), the attachment element having an air guiding portion (e.g., 66) 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 portion (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 injection tube, the attachment element having an air guiding portion 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 portion 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 extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension [for example, it is apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka that a length of the support portion 66 (e.g., “radial extension”) 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 extension”); note that “axial extension” in claim 2 does not refer to any particular element(s) of the claimed “cylinder head,” and neither “radial extension” nor “axial extension” is a number or quantity in the context of claim 2, such that “is greater than” in the context of “wherein a radial extension of the air guiding portion with respect to the tubular core axis is greater than an axial extension” has no clear meaning].
With respect to claim 3, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein the attachment element has a first connecting portion (e.g., 58 of Czapka), wherein the attachment element is arranged on the injection tube (apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka in view of at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4 of Imajo), 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 5, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 3, wherein the attachment element has a second connecting portion [e.g., an apparent outermost portion (or outer edge) of the support portion 66 of Czapka] which is in contact with a wall of the intake port (apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka in view of at least Figs. 1, 2 & 4 of Imajo), wherein the first connecting portion and the second connecting portion are connected to one another via the air guiding portion (apparent from at least Fig. 2 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 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 which can reversibly open and close a first combustion chamber opening of the intake port, wherein the first valve has a valve disc and a valve shaft which extends along a first valve axis, 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 [as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)].
With respect to claim 8, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 6, comprising: a first valve which can reversibly open and close a first combustion chamber inlet aperture of the intake port, wherein the first valve has a valve disc and a valve shaft which extends along a first valve axis and in that the cylinder head comprises a second valve which can reversibly open and close a second combustion chamber inlet aperture of the intake port, wherein the second valve has a valve disc and a valve shaft which extends along a second valve axis, 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 [as discussed in detail above with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)].
With respect to claim 9, Imajo modified supra teaches the cylinder head according to claim 1, wherein the air guiding portion is formed as an air guiding baffle (apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka), wherein an extent of the air guiding baffle along a circumference around the tubular core axis is smaller than a radial extent with respect to the tubular core axis [apparent from at least Fig. 2 of Czapka; note that “radial extent” in claim 9 does not refer to any particular element(s) of the claimed “cylinder head”].
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
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