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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the motor, and the computer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “and increases th RPM range”. It will be understood as “and increases the RPM range”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 recites “wherein locating the reed valve at the intake manifold reduces reversions and increases the RPM range of a motor; wherein the reed valve located at the intake manifold which can operate under conditions of varied timing; wherein conditions of varied timing include operation without a timing of a computer”. The Specification does not recite any language that describes the reed valve located at the intake manifold increasing an RPM range of a motor, nor does it recite any language that “a four-cycle engine” as recited in claim 1 is used in conjunction with a motor. The Specification further does not recite any language to describe a reed valve or an intake manifold being operated under varied timing conditions. The Specification does recite instances of the terms “timing” and “cam timing”, but does not recite the reed valve having variable timing, nor an intake manifold having variable timing. The Specification further does not recite any language defining a timing of a computer or lack thereof. Wherein Claim 15 recites “conditions of varied timing include operation without a timing of a computer” in the 4th line of the claim, and the Specification does not define timing of a computer nor a system that is completely void of a computer.
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.
Claim 15 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 15 recites “wherein locating the reed valve at the intake manifold reduces reversions and increases the RPM range of a motor; wherein the reed valve located at the intake manifold which can operate under conditions of varied timing; wherein conditions of varied timing include operation without a timing of a computer” in the 2nd line of the claim. It is unclear if “a motor” is an additional motor/engine or is referring to the engine that the reed valve is installed in, for the purposes of examination “a motor” will be understood as “the four-cycle engine”. It is unclear whether the reed valve can operate under conditions of varied timing or the intake manifold can operate under conditions of varied timing. It is further unclear what “without a timing of a computer” is defined to be, wherein all processes of a computer are done within the passing of time. For the purpose of examination “varied timing” will be defined as “through the passing of time”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 8, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunt (US 3,810,454).
In regards to claim 1:
Hunt teaches an anti-reversion system, comprising: a four-cycle engine (Col 2, Lines 51-68 recite the engine having an intake/compression/power/exhaust stroke);
an engine head (12); a reed block (28); a reed valve (26); an intake (14); an air flow (Col 2, Lines 3-9 recite a flow of air); an intake manifold (22); the intake manifold having a single runner for each single cylinder (Shown in Figure 1); wherein the reed valve (26) acts as an anti-reversion feature; wherein the reed valve provides anti-reversion as the reed valve is located in the intake tract of the four cycle engine eliminating the reversion effect along the intake; wherein eliminating the reversion effect along the intake prevents operation of the four cycle engine below peak efficiency; wherein the reed valve is located inline, at the intake manifold (Shown in Figure 2); wherein the reed valve being located at the intake manifold prevents intake charge from traveling upstream in the intake manifold (Shown in Figure 2 and Col 2, Lines 31-33 recites “However, once the vacuum influence of the cylinder ceases, the reed valve will close and there will be no backflow.”); wherein the reed valve is of a unitary construction flexing between a first point and a second point (Shown in Figures 2 and 3, wherein Figure 2 shows the flexing of the reed valve and Figure 3 shows the unitary construction of the reed valve); wherein the first point is an open position and the second point is a closed position (Col 2, Lines 27-34 recites the reed valve opening due to a vacuum and closing when the vacuum ceases); wherein the reed valve moves from the first point to the second point through flexion (Shown in Figure 2 the flexing of the reed valve); wherein the flexion is caused by the force of fluid moving through the intake manifold and intake (Col 2, Lines 27-34 recites the vacuum in the cylinder forces the fluid in the intake and intake manifold to open the reed valve).
In regards to claim 2:
Hunt teaches the elimination of the reversion effect due to the reed valve placement increases low RPM torque in the four-cycle engine (Col 3, Lines 25-30 recites “Also, by means of the present system, engine power is increased at slow speeds and stalling characteristics are improved.”).
In regards to claim 3:
Hunt teaches the elimination of the reversion effect due to reed valve placement provides for high RPM peak horsepower and high torque while the four-cycle engine operates under a peak RPM range, wherein Hunt recites in Col 3, Lines 16-19 that the engine is adaptable to high-speed operation, and wherein every engine has an RPM range where peak horsepower exists and this is the peak RPM range, and wherein the engine will produce torque. Furthermore, this is understood as functional language and does not provide any structural limitation.
In regards to claim 8:
Hunt teaches the system further comprising: a piston (21).
In regards to claim 13:
Hunt teaches the system further comprising a gas (Col 1, Lines 5-8 recites the system comprising “air” which is known in the art as a gas).
In regards to claim 14:
Hunt teaches the system further comprising an exhaust (Col 3, Lines 20-35 recites exhaust byproducts from the combustion of air and fuel).
In regards to claim 15:
Hunt teaches locating the reed valve at the intake manifold reduces reversions and increases the RPM range of the four-cycle engine; wherein the reed valve located at the intake manifold which can operate under conditions of varied timing; wherein conditions of varied timing include operation without a timing of a computer, wherein this is functional language and all engines work with varied timing, due to as time flows in a forward direction, fuel will be used, valves will open and close, and this all occurs in time and the time will vary due to time being unable to be frozen or being reversed. The reed valve located at the intake or anywhere in the system can exist simultaneously under a varied timing of fuel or valve timing without a computer existing, wherein through the passing of time, as an engine operates, the time will constantly be varied, for example an engine starting at an initial time, will have a varied time as time passes, wherein no two instances of time can occur in the same period of time, for time only moves forward.
In regards to claim 16:
Hunt teaches an engine, a reed valve (26), an air flow, an intake manifold (22), wherein the reed valve acts as an anti-reversion feature, wherein the reed valve provides anti-reversion as the reed valve is located in the intake tract of the engine (Shown in Figure 2), wherein the reed valve eliminates the reversion effect along the intake manifold (Col 2, Lines 31-33 recites “However, once the vacuum influence of the cylinder ceases, the reed valve will close and there will be no backflow.”), wherein the reed valve is located inline, at the intake manifold (Shown in Figure 2), wherein the reed valve being located at the intake manifold prevents intake charge from traveling upstream in the intake manifold (Col 2, Lines 31-33), each intake tract of the engine is isolated due to the location of the reed valve at the intake manifold (Shown in Figure 2), wherein the reed valve is of a unitary construction flexing between a first point and a second point, wherein the first point is an open position and the second point is a closed position, wherein the reed valve moves from the first point to the second point through flexion, wherein the flexion is caused by the force of fluid moving through the intake manifold and intake (Shown in Figures 2 and 3, wherein Figure 2 shows the flexing of the reed valve and Figure 3 shows the unitary construction of the reed valve, and Col 2, Lines 27-34 recites the vacuum in the cylinder forces the fluid in the intake and intake manifold to open the reed valve).
In regards to claim 20:
Hunt teaches increasing the fuel efficiency and power output of an internal combustion engine by providing an engine, the engine having an air flow and an intake manifold (22), configuring a reed valve (26) in the intake manifold, wherein the reed valve is configured to prevent reversion along the intake manifold, wherein the reed valve is located inline, in the intake manifold, wherein the reed valve being located in the intake manifold prevents intake charge from traveling upstream in the intake manifold (Col 2, Lines 31-33 recites “However, once the vacuum influence of the cylinder ceases, the reed valve will close and there will be no backflow.”).
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 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Kishida (US 4,488,519).
In regards to claim 5:
Hunt is silent to the system further comprising a crankshaft.
Kishida teaches a system comprising a crankshaft (Col 2, Lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the piston engine of Hunt to have a crankshaft as taught by Kishida in order to convert the power produced during combustion acting on the piston to rotate a crankshaft as taught by Kishida. This is known in the art to be connected to transmissions which in turn rotate wheels such as those found in a common automobile.
In regards to claim 6:
Hunt does not teach the system further comprising an exhaust camshaft.
Kishida teaches a system comprising an exhaust camshaft (Col 2, Lines 16-22 recites an exhaust valve that is operated via a camshaft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Hunt to have an exhaust camshaft as taught by Kishida in order to actuate an exhaust valve.
In regards to claim 7:
Hunt does not teach the system further comprising an intake camshaft.
Kishida teaches a system comprising an intake camshaft (Col 2, Lines 29-34 recites an intake valve that is operated via a camshaft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Hunt to have an intake camshaft as taught by Kishida in order to actuate an intake valve.
In regards to claim 9:
Hunt does not specify a connecting rod.
Kishida teaches a system further comprising: a connecting rod (Col 2, Lines 7-9 recites the piston is connected to the crankshaft via a connecting rod).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the system of Hunt having a connecting rod as taught by Kishida in order to connect a piston to a crankshaft.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Sakaoka et al (US 4,356,798 hereinafter “Sakaoka”).
In regards to claim 4:
Hunt is silent to the system further comprising a vehicle.
Sakaoka teaches a system comprising a vehicle (Col 1, Lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to specify the system of Hunt to comprise a vehicle as taught by Sakaoka in order to use the engine that produces power to propel an automotive bicycle or the like (Col 1, Lines 6-10 of Sakaoka).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Meyer (US 6,199,369).
In regards to claim 10:
Hunt fails to teach the system further comprising a cooling water jacket.
Meyer teaches a cooling water jacket (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Hunt to comprise a water jacket as taught by Meyer in order to cool the engine (Col 12, Lines 6-15).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Staerzl (US 5,771,866).
In regards to claim 11:
Hunt is silent to the system further comprising a liquid fuel.
Staerzl teaches a liquid fuel (Col 3, Lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to specify the fuel of Hunt to be a liquid fuel as taught by Staerzl in order to use a known fuel for combustion (Col 3, Line 47 – Col 4, Line 34 recite an engine using fuel, in combination with air and spark ignition to produce combustion in the internal combustion engine).
Claims 12, 17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Bredy (US 6,302,076).
In regards to claim 12:
Hunt is silent to the system further comprising an ignition source, wherein the ignition source is a spark plug.
Bredy teaches an ignition source, wherein the ignition source is a spark plug (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Hunt to have a spark plug as taught by Bredy in order to provide a means for ignition (Col 4, Lines 38-40).
In regards to claim 17:
Hunt is silent to the system further comprising an ignition source, wherein the ignition source is a spark plug.
Bredy teaches an ignition source, wherein the ignition source is a spark plug (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Hunt to have a spark plug as taught by Bredy in order to provide a means for ignition (Col 4, Lines 38-40).
In regards to claim 19:
Hunt teaches the engine to be a four-stroke engine (Col 2, Lines 51-68 recite the engine having an intake/compression/power/exhaust stroke) but is silent to the system further comprising an ignition source, wherein the ignition source is a spark plug.
Bredy teaches an ignition source, wherein the ignition source is a spark plug (11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Hunt to have a spark plug as taught by Bredy in order to provide a means for ignition (Col 4, Lines 38-40).
In regards to claim 21:
Hunt teaches the reed valve located at the intake manifold prevents partially burned gases from contaminating an incoming fuel charge, wherein the prevention of this contamination provides for a cleaner burn of the fuel and reduces harmful emissions (Col 3, Lines 9-36 of Hunt recites “Thus, there will be no backflow of exhaust gases from the combustion chamber or exhaust system into the intake manifold” and “By the use of the present system, there is a definite reduction in carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons from the exhaust of the engine. In fact, even at idling or loafing conditions, or during deceleration, there is no appreciable discharge of undesirable by-products.”).
Hunt does not teach the reed valve locating in the intake manifold.
Bredy teaches a reed valve located in an intake manifold (Abstract recites “A one-way valve is located within the intake manifold” and Col 5, Lines 14-15 recites “the one-way valve 22 is a reed valve”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the reed valve of Hunt to be in the intake manifold as taught by Bredy in order to perform the requirements of a one-way valve inside of the intake manifold to permit air to flow in one direction in the intake manifold (Col 5, Lines 13-20 of Bredy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747