DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 05/15/2024.
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 § 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 2-4 and 6-7 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.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “preferably” throughout the claim renders the claim indefinite and for the purpose of examination the examiner is giving the recitations after “preferably” the broadest reasonable interpretation. For claim 2, the broadest reasonable interpretation is considered by the examiner to be a cross sectional area differing from one another by less than 10% as recited in claim 1. However, for the purposes of advancing prosecution, the examiner has treated the claim to mean a cross sectional area differing from one another by less than 7% as recited after “preferably”.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “preferably” throughout the claim renders the claim indefinite and for the purpose of examination the examiner is giving the recitations after “preferably” the broadest reasonable interpretation. For claim 3, the broadest reasonable interpretation is considered by the examiner to be a piston having a piston skirt with any thickness on the circumferential surface of the piston, see rejection below.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear as to what the thickening(s) are. Looking into the applicant’s specification, specifically the drawings, fig. 2b shows the “thickening(s) as 231 and 235, but it is not clear from the drawings what the thickening(s) are (no additional drawings to provide clarity). For purposes of examination, the thickening(s) will be interpreted as any part of the piston that shows extra thickness. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what compensation the thickening(s) are providing for the recessed areas (not labeled in the drawings with the drawings barely showing an accurate view of the cross sectional area 271, 273, 275). For the purpose of examination, the examiner is treating the compensation volume sections as parts of the piston showing extra thickness for the volumes of the piston with a recess/ without thickness in order to provide support.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “preferably” throughout the claim renders the claim indefinite and for the purpose of examination the examiner is giving the recitations after “preferably” the broadest reasonable interpretation. For claim 7, the broadest reasonable interpretation is considered by the examiner to be a radius extending laterally from the axis of movement deviates from the average radius by any amount.
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 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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christopher (US 2009/0084260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Christopher discloses a piston (12), in particular for an engine having an upper side (toward piston crown), a lower side (toward piston skirt), a circumferential surface running along a circumference and an axis of movement (18, 118) running essentially parallel to a tangent of the circumferential surface and through the upper side and through the lower side, the circumferential surface being used to guide the piston in a cylinder bore of a cylinder along the axis of movement (paragraph 0019), the upper side being designed for absorbing compressive forces of a gas and the underside having a connecting rod holder (Fig. 1, 2), wherein the connecting rod holder has an undercut (Fig. 1, 3, 5), so that the connecting rod holder (26, 126) is configured to receive a head portion of a connecting rod (14) which corresponds to the connecting rod holder (26, 126) in a form-locking manner and wherein the piston can pivot relative to the connecting rod head portion about a pivot axis (58), the piston having any number of substantially flat cross-sectional surfaces arranged radially through the axis of movement, substantially planar cross-sectional surfaces extending radially through the axis of movement, characterized in that the piston is shaped in such a way that a radially arranged substantially planar first cross-sectional surface extending through the axis of movement and a radially arranged substantially planar second cross- sectional surface extending through the axis of movement have a cross-sectional area differing from one another by less than 10% (Fig. 1-5, see also paragraphs 0030-0032, see also annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Christopher further discloses the piston (12) is shaped in such a way that a radially arranged substantially planar first cross-sectional surface extending through the axis of movement and a substantially planar second cross-sectional area arranged radially through the axis of movement have a cross- sectional area differing from one another by preferably less than 7% (see at least annotated figure above, paragraph 0030-0032 and figs. 1-5, piston is substantially symmetrical (left from right side of annotated figure above) which implies that the two cross section above should also be substantially similar in cross sectional area and less than 7%).
Regarding claim 3, Christopher further discloses wherein on the circumferential surface, a piston skirt (140) extending from the upper side to the underside wherein the piston skirt (140) in particular has a radial thickness (see fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Christopher further discloses wherein a thickening (areas of larger thickness) is provided on the upper side or on the under side, wherein by means of the thickening (areas of larger thickness), a compensation for volume sections of the piston which are recessed at the respective cross-sectional area is achieved (thick areas of the piston is compensating for recessed areas) (see at least fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Christopher further discloses wherein a pocket is recessed on the top side or underside, wherein by means of the pocket, a compensation is created for volume sections of the piston arranged on the respective cross sectional area (see at least fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Christopher further discloses wherein a plurality of thickening(s) (areas of larger thickness) are arranged symmetrically to the axis of movement (fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Christopher further discloses wherein the piston has a mean radius defined by a mean value of the surface of the circumferential surface and any number of further radii extending through the axis movement and arranged radially to the axis of movement, and the piston is shaped in such a way that the radius extending laterally from the axis of movement (fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Christopher further discloses a crank unit (fig. 1, 2) with a piston (12) according to claim 1, and in particular a connecting rod with a head region corresponding to the connecting rod holder of the piston (fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 10, Christopher further discloses a reciprocating piston internal combustion engine (paragraph 0003 0005) comprising a piston (12) according to claim 1 and a crank mechanism (fig. 1-2).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher (US 2009/0084260 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Christopher discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the piston comprises an aluminum, a cast aluminum alloy, a steel, a cast steel, and/or a metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the piston with an aluminum, a cast aluminum alloy, a steel, a cast steel, and/or a metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO EN MO whose telephone number is (571)272-9970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5:30 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, Phutthiwat 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.
/XIAO EN MO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747