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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimpara et al. (PG Pub 2020/0208554).
Regarding claim 1, Kimpara teaches a breather chamber structure for an internal combustion engine, the breather chamber structure being applicable to a breather chamber for temporarily storing, inside an internal combustion engine, blowby gas generated during operation of the internal combustion engine (paragraph 37; figure 4, element 41) and to be recirculated to an intake passage (This is an intended use recitation; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.),
the breather chamber structure comprising, in the breather chamber, a two-stage section (figures 4, 6, and 8, chambers A and B; paragraph 40) formed by a first plate (figures 4, 6, and 8, element 51; paragraphs 40 and 44-46) and a second plate perpendicular to the cylinder axis (figures 5 and 7, element 43; paragraphs 35, 38, 40, 44, and 46- 50) that are attached to a rear surface side of a cylinder head cover (figures 5 and 7, elements 46; paragraphs 36-38) attached to a cylinder head of the internal combustion engine (paragraph 38; figure 7, elements 46 attach element 15 to element 43) and that are parallel with and spaced apart from each other (figure 5, elements 14 and 43 are parallel and spaced apart), the two-stage section including a first chamber (figures 4, 6, and 8, chamber A; paragraphs 40-41 and 44) and a second chamber (figures 4, 6, and 8, chamber B, paragraphs 40-41 and 44) that are partitioned by the first plate (figures 4, 6, and 8, chambers A and B are partitioned by plate 51; paragraph 44)the breather chamber includes the first chamber into which the blowby gas is introduced first (figures 4, 6, and 8, chamber A and element 55; paragraph 48), the second chamber into which the blowby gas is introduced from the first chamber (figures 4, 6, and 8, chamber B and element 56; paragraph 49), and a third chamber into which the blowby gas is introduced from the second chamber (figures 4, 6, and 8, chamber C and element 57; paragraph 50),
the third chamber is disposed on a lateral side of the two-stage section (figures 4, 6, and 8 show chamber C disposed on two sides of chambers A and B),
the third chamber is provided with a discharge pipe that discharges the blowby gas to outside of the internal combustion engine (figures 6 and 8, element 58; paragraph 52), and
a height dimension of the third chamber is greater than a height dimension of each of the first chamber and the second chamber (figure 4 and 6 show the height of chamber C to be greater than that of chambers A and B).
Regarding claim 3, Kimpara teaches the breather chamber structure according to claim 2, further comprising:
a communication passage that establishes communication between the second chamber and the third chamber (paragraph 50; figures 4, 6, and 8, element 57),
wherein the discharge pipe is disposed at a position at which the discharge pipe does not overlap with the communication passage when viewed in a direction from the third chamber toward the second chamber (figure 6, elements 58 and 57 do not overlap with each other when viewed towards 52).
Regarding claim 5, Kimpara teaches the breather chamber structure according to claim 1,
wherein the second plate has a larger area than the first plate (figures 5 and 8 shows element 43 being larger than element 51).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimpara et al. (PG Pub 2020/0208554).
Regarding claim 4, Kimpara teaches the breather chamber structure according to claim 3.
Kimpara discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a lower end of the discharge pipe is at a position lower than the first plate in a side view of the internal combustion engine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to lower the end of the discharge pipe, elements 58 and 59 below element 51 in figures 4, 6, and 8, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Given the locations of element 15 and other engine elements in figure 1, it would be obvious to assume that the discharge of pipe 58, which is not shown in figure 1 or any of the figures in Kimpara, could be placed lower than element 51. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed November 6, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Pat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747